Freedom in America: Why the Income Tax Must Go »
Posted By populist 5 months, 4 weeks ago in Business & FinanceWithout the resources to meddle in our lives, the government will have to withdraw to the limits of the Constitution. And the rewards it offers provide an opportunity to reach all Americans with a message of a better life - leading perhaps to April 15, 2010, when we celebrate Freedom Day instead of Tax Day.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com »
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 124
-
0%
engineer5 months, 4 weeks ago
Income tax is the only progressive tax,. Eliminating would only help the wealthy and hurt everyone else. The problem is is that the wealthy have gotten a way with murder. if a person earning 30,000 per year has 20% taken out, the person ,may not be able to live. A person "earning" 10 million dollars per year has 20% taken out they still survive well.
The income tax evens out the field so that the less fortunate will have the least percentage wise taken out and the wealthy may pay their fair share (Hopefully it will be a fair share one day)!!
Reply-
0%
populist5 months, 4 weeks ago
Actually, I disagree. Eliminating it will help everyone - because it'll force the government to live within its means...much closer to the limits of the constitution.
And, it'll still have about the same amount of money to work with as we did in the 90's under clinton.
I don't trust the government with all this money of ours - all they do is lie to us, spy to us, deflate our currency, wage aggressive wars, and on and on and on....
Reply-
0%
Lurch5 months, 3 weeks ago
>Actually, I disagree. Eliminating it will help everyone - because it'll force the government to live within its means...much closer to the limits of the constitution.
Problem is, no limit of income has ever stopped or even slowed down Republican spending. Not since Reagan anyway. Bush has added $3T to our debt just on iraq alone, not counting his massive increases in domestic crony-entitlement programs or his private-taxation entitlement programs. All unfunded spending.
If he can get away with all that and still have the support of about half of the Republicans, I don`t see any limit on govt income having any affect on the way future Republicans waste our $ for personal and political profit.
Interesting article and good in theory, but where the rubber meets the road, unfunded spending, that is what needs to be controlled first.
Reply
-
0%
blablabla5 months, 4 weeks ago
I strongly disagree engineer. Income tax is to enslave people. It came about the same year when the Fed took control of the dollar in 1913, it was done so government can borrow money against future tax collections. Every penny of our tax money goes to the federal reserve to pay for interest. The fed is no more federal than fedex and there is absolutely no reserve! Please watch "the money masters" on google video, very educational!
Reply-
0%
populist5 months, 4 weeks ago
Another good film is Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE
Reply
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs5 months, 3 weeks ago
What is true is that with medicare and social security included, the poor tax payers pay the same percentage of their income or more than the rich, especially the uber-rich. And taxes on spending only will make this significantly WORSE, not better. If you barely earn a living wage you will pay a much larger percentage of our income to the gov't than the person who earns a surplus that he does not spend.
I favor a flat income tax with a baseline nontaxable amount of income, and an equal percentage of the remainder paid by every entity (person, business, corporation, any taxable entity) on all income from any source, and no exemptions at all.
Reply-
0%
BigBadJohn6665 months, 3 weeks ago
I favor a flat income tax with a baseline nontaxable amount of income
You are right. The so called Fair tax (sales or consumption tax) is the most unfair tax of all. It would be a rich man's dream and a poor man's nightmare. The poor man spends all his money and the rich man would have millions of tax free dollars left over to make millions more tax free dollars.
Congressman Feeney from Florida Backs a Flat Tax. Feeney's flat tax would protect low-income households by exempting the first $30,000 of income and a generous personal deduction and child deduction, while businesses could reduce their rate from 35 percent but would have to give up all tax credits. then a flat tax of 19% after that. This is much more fair than a national sales tax and would be fought by the rich man. They would however be all for the consumption tax. When I refer to the national sales tax, the consumption tax and the so called fair tax, they are all the same tax.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Gransater5 months, 4 weeks ago
Since our economy no longer is based on agriculture, where the majority of the population lives in the countryside, I don't think this would work, however much I would enjoy keeping my hard earned money.
I do believe there should be a limit on spending, but this will only come by electing people into goverment, that are there because they want to make a diference to the country, and not to their friends.
Unrestraining bussiness would be great, if they all operated under legal and moral ethics. Unfortunately that isn't so. Self regulation does not work, abuses are rampant in the name of a quick buck, regardless of type of bussiness. Our forfathers learned that lesson, and instituted rules and regulations, which since have been taken away and dismantled by bits and pieces. Untill we can take the predatory element out of capitalism, thus changing capitalism to something else, rules and regulations and oversight ARE needed. Then I will possibly agree to eliminate taxes.
:)
Reply-
0%
blablabla5 months, 4 weeks ago
"Unrestraining bussiness would be great, if they all operated under legal and moral ethics"
They wouldn't have to self regulate, free markets would do it for them... Regulations are there to benefit big business. Big business gives money to politician, in exchange politician regulates business environment, they win we lose.
Reply-
0%
Gransater5 months, 4 weeks ago
Free market implies capitalism. One of capitalism's main unspoken rule is that it is predatory. Predatory will bring about if nothing else amoral patterns. The idea that market will regulate them only works untill a bussiness entity grows to a X size. Once that threshold is behind them, regardless of market, greed will take over. For an example, see what happened to California under Enron. Free market, supposedly would regulate their activity but failed miserably.
Our difficulty is in maintaining that free spirit of can do, nurture bussiness, and still keep the keel in the water, without killing it by overregulation. It takes all parties to make it work. Right now it's kind of one sided in favor of bussiness.
The idea is that politicians will do their thing with ALL people in mind, not their friends. Its up to the people to elect such representatives. We are failing miserably at that, given current conditions.
Reply
-
-
0%
amazed5 months, 4 weeks ago
((Our forfathers learned that lesson, and instituted rules and regulations, which since have been taken away and dismantled by bits and pieces.))
Which forefather would that be? Business is more regulated than it has ever been in the history of the U.S.-- in fact, until the twentieth century and Teddy Roosevelt, there were NO regulations whatsoever -- caveat emptor was our official policy. TR was known as the "trust buster" attempting to break up monopolies, this led to the Wagner Act, the Taft-Hartley, Smoo, and a host of other business regulations that broke ground in the 1930's and '40's. There wasn't even an OSHA until the late sixties or early seventies. Now, we have regulations covering EVERYTHING -- SEC, DEP, DOE, DOL, DOT, OSHA, etc. and those are just federal -- the states mirror each of these and throws in even more -- insurance commission, banking commissions, consumer protections...
again, where were these forefathers from?
Reply-
0%
Lurch5 months, 3 weeks ago
The problem now is not the abundance of regulations, but the quality of the regulations. As others have stated, it is not the watch-dog groups that are making the regulations, it is industry itself who is buying the lobbyist to write the laws for our representatives who never read the laws they pass.
These regulations are creating loopholes, handouts, barriers to entry (competition), and other artificial monopolies or advantages for the crony corps.
We are told deregulation is good, til the next S&L, stock market, real estate, subprime, military-entertainment bubble bursts. At which point it costs we realized we`ve been robbed again but the govt is quick to bail out the perps/crooks.
Then, we are told regulation is needed only to find out same perps/crooks wrote the regulations.
Damned if we do and damned if we don`t.
Reply
-
-
0%
deadlyhaiku5 months, 4 weeks ago
I think I agree more with engineer on this subject. I listen to the Thom Hartmann radio show when I can, and I agree when he says that we need to "roll back the Reagan tax cuts". Bush is just a harsh continuation of that.
The income tax would be fine if it were fair and progressive the way it used to be. If we come back to what is fair, I think then there could be argument as to it's validity and effectiveness as a income source for our government, and as to whether or not we would have 'enough' government if we did without it, or even much less of it.
Reply -
0%
coolrayfruge5 months, 4 weeks ago
Taxes is in direct violation of our Constitutional rights.
Rights that billions of Americans have fought to preserve.
They have trampled on our right with their scam.
Placing thenselves about the Constitution and the laws of our fore fathers.
It is a Illegal law that was never passed by the Supreme court.
It is a Illegal exstortion racket.
The IRS should be held guilty of False imprisonment of innocent people,rac... and violating the laws of the Constitution.
They have Victimized the people of the United States of america far to long
Robbing the people of their rights and freedom given to them by the laws of the Constitution and by God.
They have no right to auction off
property and land that doen't belong to them.
Using scare tactics,threats and the ignorance of the people to get them to pay their exstortion fees.
The people need to Abolish their laws and stand up to them to get our Freedom back.
Reply -
0%
coolrayfruge5 months, 4 weeks ago
Watch Aaron Russo's America Freedom to Fascism.
11 part Docomentry. On You Tube.com
Learn more about how corrupt this system really is,and what their plans for the American people are.
Reply -
0%
jordan115 months, 4 weeks ago
How do you have a society without the commons, and how do you have the commons without the contribution of all its citizens?
Reply-
0%
populist5 months, 4 weeks ago
Society exists with or without government.
Fact of the matter is that the without the IRS, we'd still have a Federal government with about the same amount of revenue as ALL taxes in 1995.
Without the Income Tax, the Feds would still have well-over $1 TRILLION in revenue.
Most people don't even know that. And we're all getting ripped off because of that lack of knowledge.
Reply
-
